New "Stay Back" sticker

[Garethgas]

Glenn is entirely correct. The evidence (including the government produced KSI statistics) shows that in the overwhelming majority of cases the cyclist is in no way to blame in KSI RTCs on UK roads - and that's based on the assessment of people who are notorious for blaming cyclists if they can.

The evidence is against you. Your rather shrill posts are beginning to make you look silly.

It depends on whether you read one study or a selection which gives a more balanced indication.
From ROSPA:
In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is 'failed to look properly' by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. 'Failed to look properly' was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions.
Also:
The second most common contributory factor attributed to cyclists was 'cyclist entering the road from the pavement' (including when a cyclist crosses the road at a pedestrian crossing), which was recorded in about 20% serious collisions (and over one third of serious collisions involving child cyclists).

Obviously, I've cherry picked my quotes to illustrate the point that different studies will produce different results.
I've not once said that cyclists are to blame for RTC's so I don't know where you got that idea from.
My view is that anything that can be done to promote cycling safety should be welcomed.
Silly, patronising stickers isn't one of them, neither is dismissing reckless riding as being insignificant, particularly as it's based on one study.
I won't be drawn any further on this as the OP was referring to stickers on lorries, not who can find the best study to support their view.

 

[byegad]

Not all London cyclists undertake moving large vehicles; or are we all credited with no sense because we live in London?

I'm sure the first part of this is correct.

However you couldn't pay me enough to live in London.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I'm sure the first part of this is correct.

However you couldn't pay me enough to live in London.

Yeah, it's correct. I ride in London, I won't go down the inside of a moving large vehicle. So not everyone does. Actually, I'm not alone in that, I'll need a good reason to undertake a non-moving large vehicle to be honest. Some of us even stop at red lights and everything.

 

[glenn forger]

It depends on whether you read one study or a selection which gives a more balanced indication.
From ROSPA:
.

It's not really balanced at all, the ROSPA stats include child casualties- falling off in the park or back garden with often no other vehicle involved.


Accidents involving child cyclists are often the result of the child playing, doing tricks, riding too fast or losing control.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

So stickers don't come into it, since children get hurt by falling off the bike on their own.

2012;

Of the 122 deaths, 106 are known to have taken place due to a collision with a motor vehicle, while a number of the remaining deaths are still being investigated.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3313260.ece

So the vast majority of fatalities involve a motor vehicle. The only way this changes is if you include child casualties involving no other vehicle. That's a bit dishonest.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I think it's ludicrous that you said that riding in a risky manner does not contribute to accidents,...

Except I didn't. ...

You did, here:

Another thing wrong with those stupid stickers is that it encourages the myth that risky cycling causes accidents. It doesn't.

After being challenged you began to qualify that assertion, asking Garethgas to answer what were the main causes of cyclist/motor vehicle KSIs, then describing risky cycling as not being a significant causal factor, and then 'causes hardly any KSI RTCS', eventually getting to 'It's extremely likely that riding in a risky manner contributes to accidents'.

Garethgas challenged your first statement which did indeed state that risky cycling doesn't cause accidents. You've come back with stats on KSIs, not all cycling road accidents and their causes.

GC

 

[John Shingler]

i had to get closer to read what it says.

 

[glenn forger]

Risky cycling can make accidents more likely. Risky cycling is not a factor in cyclist KSI collisions. These statements aren't mutually exclusive, the tragedy of these stickers is that the argument gets diverted to the culpability or otherwise of cyclists, when that is emphatically not the problem. That list of names wasn't "page filler", it was real examples of cyclists doing nothing wrong who got killed. Stickers were irrelevant, arguments about cyclist at fault aren't relevant. It's about saving lives, yes? So why waste so much time and effort on silly stickers aimed at the victims of bad driving?